This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was hoping to insert a template like Minnesota has, listing it's officers. But it's an uploaded template so that no one can fool with it. (Not a bad idea, once it's solid). I don't know how to download a copy nor to reproduce one. Can someone help? Student7 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
We need a place somewhere in the Vermont panoply for some more details from the prestigidous, non-partisan Pew Report which gave Vermont a B- for 2008, not a bad mark. It has some real inconvenient truths in there (for either party) and the future however! Student7 ( talk) 00:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Tried to move stuff down from Vermont article. Did not delete stuff there which needs it badly. This probably needs more reorg. Student7 ( talk) 18:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
A judge ruled that double lines in a road are "merely advisory" a few years ago. Can't give a ticket for crossing them if that is the only "violation". Can't find reference to this. Student7 ( talk) 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:N focuses on "notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." As for content of article it says: "They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people.[6] Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight." So let's make sure we are discussing the same thing.
It's too early to say these people are NOT notable. And more references can/will be provided showing their names were mentioned in a number of publications. At least one had a whole article devoted to them since this first put up; maybe both by now. But given I have to get ready for the big east coast storm/possible power outages, may not get around to it for a couple days. Obviously over time if not much comes of their campaigns, their names should be removed. But it might be a bit POV to do so immediately. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 19:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
A lot of this stuff is non WP:TOPIC. It is about Elections in Vermont and belongs in that article. Elections is what people do (not Politics). The articles stop at the election. At which time "Politics" start. It is okay to say, "X Party passed Y legislation which was unpopular and they were voted out of office in the subsequent election." With references. But only the roughest election results are generally necessary here. Leave that for the Election article. This is about Act 250, Act 60, that sort of thing. Student7 ( talk) 21:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I expected to find a discussion of electoral politics and the exercise of political power in the formulation of legislation. Instead, what I see here is mostly a disorganized discussion of statutes. In my opinion, this article should not exist in Wikipedia, as written. It doesn't even conform to the definition of politics, found at the page on the subject: "Politics (from Greek: politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the art or science of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. A variety of methods is employed in politics, which include promoting its own political views among people, negotiation with other political subjects, making laws, and exercising force, including warfare against adversaries. Politics is exercised on a wide range of social levels, from clans and tribes of traditional societies, through modern local governments, companies and institutions up to sovereign states, to international level." User:HopsonRoad 00:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I have drafted a reorganization of this article with additional, more pertinent material in my sandbox. I plan to move that material across to this article on or about 1 January 2014, pending input about the advisability of doing so. Please leave your comments here. I have moved most of the content of the existing article into appropriate locations. Even so, it is my opinion that the content is poorly written. Note that I have commented out some content that I feel is inappropriate for WP, e.g. a promotional website for a public nudity group. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 03:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, Student7. Are you suggesting that there be another section, named "Elections..."? Isn't that what Political party strength in Vermont does? There are a number of political parties that seldom succeed at the polls, but they are part of the political landscape. Politics is in large measure how people persuade a majority of voters or legislators to vote for candidates or legislation. I'll wait for other input, bring the article across and let normal editing commence. User:HopsonRoad 02:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't advocate merging the list, because it's the same list. I'm fine with pointing there from here. Bear in mind, it's here because it was the organizing principal for the material, reported here. User:HopsonRoad 23:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Take Back Vermont needs to be someplace since there is an article. For me, this is a classic example of campaigning/electioneering that ultimately was unsuccessful. It needs to be in Elections in Vermont, since it was formed to raise money for candidates and to motivate like-minded people to vote. Everything to do with campaigning. Did not succeed and therefore, ultimately had no impact whatever on "politics." Student7 ( talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone using an IP address made some unexplained edits at Politics of Vermont. They appeared to contradict the cited sources. Additionally, the editor placed a link to a site that does not "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", per Wikipedia Wikipedia:External links. Nonetheless, the editor shows good-faith interest in the subject, so I hope that with experience he/she can learn the ropes of Wikipedia. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Can we, for starters, agree that this is an encyclopedia, not television where the same thing is said several different ways over many sentences to make sure their (stupid) audience understands? "Every single" = "Every". We don't require two adjectives to modify election. WP:KISS. Student7 ( talk) 19:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The material identifying the "French" as largely assimilated came from an existing article French American. Correlating "French" with Democratic voting is like saying:
This is sloppy logic. Correlation is not causation. It's not proof of anything. The source quoted is questionably reliable IMO. Student7 ( talk) 19:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
You're using sloppy logic here and/or making a false assertion. Nobody is suggesting correlation is causation, the causation in question is explicitly stated in multiple sources. Find competing sources. Secondly the sentence or two on French-Canadiens becoming American does not directly relate to the rest of the article, and therefor should be removed and the article suggesting they are conservative does not belong in the article either because it doesn't say in the source this correlates with their electoral habits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.157.147 ( talk) 00:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
From what I've gleaned from this article, the majority of this article is really just about legislation in Vermont...So I feel as though we should possibly make a page for this information ( Legislation of Vermont), or refocus our attention to issues related to parties, gerrymandering, democratic structure, statistics, etc. UsernameTBD ( talk) 00:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I commented out a new section that, if properly sourced, appears to belong in Political party strength in Vermont. The contributor is working from an IP address, so it's impossible to tell wether it's the same contributor, who has been providing earlier material on this topic. I suggest reviewing the sources provided to see whether they come to the same conclusion as the material suggests. User:HopsonRoad 00:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Although the part in the article that mentions that Vermont banned billboards outright in 1968 is correct. The part where it mentions that all billboards were gone from the state by 1974 is incorrect. While searching the web, I stumbled across a photo of Bellows Falls from July 1976 showing a building having two billboards on top of it. It's unlikely that the date of the photo is incorrect, as the picture shows Canadian Pacific Railway No. 1293 pulling the Vermont Centenial Steam Train. The photo can be found in the link below.
-- JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 19:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was hoping to insert a template like Minnesota has, listing it's officers. But it's an uploaded template so that no one can fool with it. (Not a bad idea, once it's solid). I don't know how to download a copy nor to reproduce one. Can someone help? Student7 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
We need a place somewhere in the Vermont panoply for some more details from the prestigidous, non-partisan Pew Report which gave Vermont a B- for 2008, not a bad mark. It has some real inconvenient truths in there (for either party) and the future however! Student7 ( talk) 00:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Tried to move stuff down from Vermont article. Did not delete stuff there which needs it badly. This probably needs more reorg. Student7 ( talk) 18:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
A judge ruled that double lines in a road are "merely advisory" a few years ago. Can't give a ticket for crossing them if that is the only "violation". Can't find reference to this. Student7 ( talk) 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:N focuses on "notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." As for content of article it says: "They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people.[6] Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight." So let's make sure we are discussing the same thing.
It's too early to say these people are NOT notable. And more references can/will be provided showing their names were mentioned in a number of publications. At least one had a whole article devoted to them since this first put up; maybe both by now. But given I have to get ready for the big east coast storm/possible power outages, may not get around to it for a couple days. Obviously over time if not much comes of their campaigns, their names should be removed. But it might be a bit POV to do so immediately. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 19:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
A lot of this stuff is non WP:TOPIC. It is about Elections in Vermont and belongs in that article. Elections is what people do (not Politics). The articles stop at the election. At which time "Politics" start. It is okay to say, "X Party passed Y legislation which was unpopular and they were voted out of office in the subsequent election." With references. But only the roughest election results are generally necessary here. Leave that for the Election article. This is about Act 250, Act 60, that sort of thing. Student7 ( talk) 21:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I expected to find a discussion of electoral politics and the exercise of political power in the formulation of legislation. Instead, what I see here is mostly a disorganized discussion of statutes. In my opinion, this article should not exist in Wikipedia, as written. It doesn't even conform to the definition of politics, found at the page on the subject: "Politics (from Greek: politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the art or science of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. A variety of methods is employed in politics, which include promoting its own political views among people, negotiation with other political subjects, making laws, and exercising force, including warfare against adversaries. Politics is exercised on a wide range of social levels, from clans and tribes of traditional societies, through modern local governments, companies and institutions up to sovereign states, to international level." User:HopsonRoad 00:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I have drafted a reorganization of this article with additional, more pertinent material in my sandbox. I plan to move that material across to this article on or about 1 January 2014, pending input about the advisability of doing so. Please leave your comments here. I have moved most of the content of the existing article into appropriate locations. Even so, it is my opinion that the content is poorly written. Note that I have commented out some content that I feel is inappropriate for WP, e.g. a promotional website for a public nudity group. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 03:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, Student7. Are you suggesting that there be another section, named "Elections..."? Isn't that what Political party strength in Vermont does? There are a number of political parties that seldom succeed at the polls, but they are part of the political landscape. Politics is in large measure how people persuade a majority of voters or legislators to vote for candidates or legislation. I'll wait for other input, bring the article across and let normal editing commence. User:HopsonRoad 02:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't advocate merging the list, because it's the same list. I'm fine with pointing there from here. Bear in mind, it's here because it was the organizing principal for the material, reported here. User:HopsonRoad 23:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Take Back Vermont needs to be someplace since there is an article. For me, this is a classic example of campaigning/electioneering that ultimately was unsuccessful. It needs to be in Elections in Vermont, since it was formed to raise money for candidates and to motivate like-minded people to vote. Everything to do with campaigning. Did not succeed and therefore, ultimately had no impact whatever on "politics." Student7 ( talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone using an IP address made some unexplained edits at Politics of Vermont. They appeared to contradict the cited sources. Additionally, the editor placed a link to a site that does not "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", per Wikipedia Wikipedia:External links. Nonetheless, the editor shows good-faith interest in the subject, so I hope that with experience he/she can learn the ropes of Wikipedia. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Can we, for starters, agree that this is an encyclopedia, not television where the same thing is said several different ways over many sentences to make sure their (stupid) audience understands? "Every single" = "Every". We don't require two adjectives to modify election. WP:KISS. Student7 ( talk) 19:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The material identifying the "French" as largely assimilated came from an existing article French American. Correlating "French" with Democratic voting is like saying:
This is sloppy logic. Correlation is not causation. It's not proof of anything. The source quoted is questionably reliable IMO. Student7 ( talk) 19:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
You're using sloppy logic here and/or making a false assertion. Nobody is suggesting correlation is causation, the causation in question is explicitly stated in multiple sources. Find competing sources. Secondly the sentence or two on French-Canadiens becoming American does not directly relate to the rest of the article, and therefor should be removed and the article suggesting they are conservative does not belong in the article either because it doesn't say in the source this correlates with their electoral habits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.157.147 ( talk) 00:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
From what I've gleaned from this article, the majority of this article is really just about legislation in Vermont...So I feel as though we should possibly make a page for this information ( Legislation of Vermont), or refocus our attention to issues related to parties, gerrymandering, democratic structure, statistics, etc. UsernameTBD ( talk) 00:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I commented out a new section that, if properly sourced, appears to belong in Political party strength in Vermont. The contributor is working from an IP address, so it's impossible to tell wether it's the same contributor, who has been providing earlier material on this topic. I suggest reviewing the sources provided to see whether they come to the same conclusion as the material suggests. User:HopsonRoad 00:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Although the part in the article that mentions that Vermont banned billboards outright in 1968 is correct. The part where it mentions that all billboards were gone from the state by 1974 is incorrect. While searching the web, I stumbled across a photo of Bellows Falls from July 1976 showing a building having two billboards on top of it. It's unlikely that the date of the photo is incorrect, as the picture shows Canadian Pacific Railway No. 1293 pulling the Vermont Centenial Steam Train. The photo can be found in the link below.
-- JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 19:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)